RAJRANI DASSI Vs. GANESHPRASAD SRICHANDAN MAHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the lower Court setting aside a sale held for arrears of Government revenue. It appears from the judgment of the lower Court that a taluq called Pachitira, bearing No. 160 on the Collectorate roll of Balasore, was sold for arrears of Government revenue for the November kist of 1904, amounting to Rs. 24. The property was sold on the 6 February 1905 for Rs. 1,000 and purchased by the appellants, and the sale was confirmed on the 1 August of the same year. There was an appeal to the Commissioner by the respondents, the original proprietors, which was rejected on the 3 July 1905. The present suit was instituted on the 3 July 1906 under Section 33 of Act XI of 1859.

(2.) The grounds which were put forward for setting aside the sale were two: First, that in the 6 column of the sale proclamation, under Section 6 of Act XI of 1859, the name of the proprietor was wrongly stated. The name given was Bhajan Raut of Jesatikri. It seems that there is on the Collectorate roll of the Cuttack District a mehal bearing Towzi number 160, and that the proprietor of that mehal is Bhajan Raut. Rent for this mehal is paid into the Balasore Collectorate. The case for the plaintiffs was that, owing to that mis-statement in the sale notification, intending bidders were misled; that there was doubt as to the estate which was actually being sold, and that, in consequence, the mehal, the proper value of which was Rs. 6,000, was sold for Rs. 1,000 only.

(3.) The second point taken was that the notice required by Section 7 of Act XI of 1859 was served, not in mehal Pachitira, which is estate No. 160 on the Balasore Collectorate, but in mehal Bhagra, which is estate No. 160 on the Collectorate roll of the Cuttack District, and of which the proprietor is Bhajan Raut. It was contended that this constituted a serious irregularity, and that, these two irregularities having resulted in a substantial loss to the proprietor of the mehal, the sale should be set aside. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that these mistakes in the proceedings leading up to the sale constituted irregularities. It has also come to the conclusion that the property was sold for a very inadequate price, that the proprietors suffered substantial loss, and that the loss was consequent on the irregularities.